What to do about nice but misguided people

A lateral thinking style comment could be, "oh the 'most vulnerable in society' are surely severely disabled women and girls who are unable to easily communicate, so I'm not sure it's as straight forward as that."

I did have a lot of fun once commenting on an acquaintance's public post sharing that cringe C4 Charlotte Clymer short, and being all "oh so brave 😍!"

My acquaintance is a locally well known dancer who runs loads of fabulous fitness classes as well as performing.

I just said something like, "didn't this person get in to trouble for sexual harassment in their previous workplace or something?"

Post deleted a few hours later 😆

Yes I think that's correct

I have never once met a tra on mumsnet who appears well educated on the true gender critical position.
I suspect Owen Jones and Billy Bragg know the arguments, and simply place men over women, but the vast majority think that the gc position is identical to the religious right’s.

My favourite tactic is to quizzically and faux naively pose question/ statement along the lines of, oh but it just all seems so sexist doesn't it?

And leave them hanging. As NO ONE wants to be sexist.

(IRL. Fb is pointless.)

I think we all need to consider that there isn’t a “correct” answer here
the premise of this thread suggests that people advocating for trans rights are wrong and need to be educated
but in fairness, lots of those people are educated, know the arguments and just have a different position
it's the same in lots of political/ethical/rights based issues
a discussion is great, but if you’re going into it thinking that people on the “other side” are wrong and just don’t know what you do then you’re going in with the wrong attitude imo

I'd like to comment here on your post, Porcilina, and also the one you were responding to:

I think it can be a good approach in discussions with individuals on this topic to stay away from these belief elements. For all the reasons mentioned.

I think it's a little naive to think we can avoid ideologies by prohibiting religion, or things that look like religion. This idea that non-religious philosophies or ideologies are somehow neutral, and fundamentally different that religious ones, is completely false. Everyone has some idea, even if poorly thought out and articulated, about what is real, how things fit together, how to think about truth, what gives things meaning, and so on.

Western society, even in modern secular contexts, still for a long time had a pretty strong basis in a shared set of ideas about these things. Now, perhaps, it's less so. But any set of ideas that schools are going to teach kids about the nature of science, or truth, or justice, or fairness, is coming from a worldview perspective.

Personally, I think kids in a good faith school have a real advantage, because they can learn the underlying beliefs that structure what they are being taught, which allows the possibility of being critical of them, or seeing how they influence their own thought. Most non-religious schools just take a set of widely held ideas about reality for granted, and teach from that as if it's self-evident. But it's not, and if students believe that they can't challenge those ideas.

Sounds like a great plan! I'm happy to be in. I'd be happy as any "character".
An organised exercise sounds like a great way to do it.
At the very least it's worth opening a thread and seeing who might step forward.

This was thread 2 of 3:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4796082-still-genuinely-willing-to-discuss-in-good-faith

It has a link to thread 1... Which had a very different vibe to start with... But also useful and where the steel-manning started then morphed in to genuine discussion.

I think it went something like this:

1. "Good faith" poster started thread 1.. then disappeared
2. Remaining people found conversation interesting and steel-manning was initiated
3. Actual debate happened. Someone who had a genuine belief in gender identity joined in (they are already there in thread 2) and took part in a genuinely non-hostile conversation.

Lots of twists and turns along the way. Including me (and others) being told off for "fawning"... I think you may also have been in one of the threads, possibly after the steel-manning had morphed to actual debate, @MargotBamborough but I may have remembered that wrong. I remember you posting some great points on long debate threads, if it wasn't one of these.

Could we do that again? Like an organised debate?

I would absolutely love to argue the other side of this.

We could pick a particular topic and perhaps have one person arguing from a hardcore trans activist perspective, or perhaps a trans person's perspective, and maybe another person arguing purely from a "be kind" perspective, and everyone else challenging them.

One person suggested it and I'm not sure anyone else had heard of it. So there was a bit of confusion initially but then it fell in to place when someone else stepped forward as the "TRA" and the rest of us figured out what was going on. For a fair amount of time afterwards it was referred to as "the steel-manning threads" or the "good faith" threads. After a few rounds of it, the conversation naturally flowed more as people found their debating voices with the need of a specific protagonist. A very useful exercise though. And one that could definitely be done in a more organised way. Useful for participants and lurkers alike I should think.

Can you explain more about the steel manning?

Was it done in an organised way, like a debate where you're told which side of the debate you have to be?

👍👍👍

There are people at Malaga Airport who are very adept at manipulating people.

If this is all that is left standing in this section of the thread it will look very odd 😂 However, it's such an important thing to keep in mind. They also manipulate the angry footsoldiers just as much as the "captured" legislators and teachers etc.

Remember, the code word for AGP is 'Malaga Airport '

If this ends up as a duplicate, apologies to all...

Agreed.
There are people with a genuine distress about their body (gender dysphoria), there are people who are genuinely fearful that there is a "trans genocide" (because they've been whipped up in fear as useful screaming pawns and footsoldiers), there are people for whom "trans" is how they currently feel to make sense of themselves and where they fit in the world (similar to being a goth, emo, hippy etc etc).

And there are people who are very adept at manipulating others so that they can slip their fetish under the radar in to law, education and healthcare.

Hmmmmm. This will get deleted....

Agreed.
There are people with a genuine distress about their body (gender dysphoria), there are people who are genuinely fearful that there is a "trans genocide" (because they've been whipped up in fear as useful screaming pawns and footsoldiers), there are people for whom "trans" is how they currently feel to make sense of themselves and where they fit in the world (similar to being a goth, emo, hippy etc etc).

And there are AGPs who are very adept at manipulating others so that they can slip their fetish under the radar in to law, education and healthcare.

@gidabo

We don't allow believers in angels... special access to children in our schools

Sure we do. Christianity is officially promoted in our schools, although a lot of them today may not be following the law.

As we allow parents an opt-out, and parents have the right to indoctrinate their own children, I don't see it as a big deal, but opinions will differ.

Nor do we allow such beliefs to influence our laws or our wider society

Depends what you mean. In principle, if enough people became Catholics, yes they are allowed to force their beliefs on abortion on everyone else.

And some people could argue that the ethics of our society are still strongly influenced by Christianity even when we have largely abandoned the religion.

We still officially celebrate Christian holidays of course. And I think in England we have a state religion.

But anyway, I agree with you that we shouldn't allow schools to indoctrinate children with "progressive" ideas about gender identity. I believe that's already supposed to be against the law, but many schools may not be following it.

We need better guidance to schools obviously, but maybe also a system where parents / pupils can report their school for an investigation. Teachers do need to be potentially disciplined.

Yes, context is all and definitely best done IRL.

@fearfuloffluff completely agree about separating out the different groups. I feel we talk at cross purposes and when I explain this way it seems to click.

Depending on who I'm talking to and what the conversation is about, I'll either ignore someone telling me I've got a gendered soul i.e. that they see me as someone who identifies as a woman. Or I'll challenge it head on and say that they are welcome to believe I do but I don't believe that myself. It all depends on who I'm talking to and what the conversation is about.
I talk to several trans people or parents of trans identifying children. In those situations I'll let it go without comment. But if I'm talking to someone about my own belief in the immutability of sex, without pushing that belief as a truth of course, I'll make it very clear that I don't identify as a woman. Nor do I identify as white-skinned or blonde etc. I just am those things. They are all just physical descriptors.... according to my belief.

You need to distinguish between people who are trans and people who want to exploit the loopholes trans rights laws create.

She's not wrong that being trans makes you vulnerable - people do double takes, you're at higher risk of assault and being yelled at in the street, rejection from your family and friends, harder to get work, it might be harder to access services eg find doctors who are sympathetic. All in all, not good for mental health.

Most trans people aren't interested in elite sports and will never go near a prison. I agree that there need to be restrictions and safeguards in those areas. But that doesn't counter the fact that people who identify as trans very often have a hard time of it.

I don't think concern about how trans laws might impact women means you have to feel scorn or hate or even distaste about trans people.

Brilliant post @BonfireLady

The only thing I'd query is the not challenging a belief in gendered souls. I totally get what you mean about leaving others to their beliefs in gender identity (or different religions), but the problem I've had IRL is they assume that I have a gendered soul too (and hence must declare my pronouns/c*s privilege/trans allyship).

Religious people mostly understand that other people have different beliefs or none. Gender-special people assume that gender identity is a universal part of human existence, and if you've never thought about your gender identity, it's because it matches your body! In a way they have to push this view because of the radical changes to society and law that TRAs are demanding.

Thank you. That's very kind.
I've been on Twitter more than here lately (I can't wait to step away from that Twitter once the medical scandal is fully out in the open... I'm not a social media fan at all 😬😁) but it's been a particularly toxic place over the last few days WRT the news in the Middle East etc... so I'm back in for a proper look through all the threads.
There are some incredible posters who have been here for years. @ArabellaScott you're one I admire hugely and from whom I've learned a lot. I have no idea how you've been at this with patience and tenacity for so long! There are many others too. Some change names so it's not always easy to know who is who.
This particular thread is interesting because I think so many people can relate. Hopefully a few lurkers will find it. It's exactly the kind of thread I'd have looked for in my early days.